We've been bankrupted by 1%!

[SSB]

A spilt milk story.

In 1980 the US government received 517 billion in revenue and spent 590 billion. If we had simply limited the growth in government spending to an average of 3% per year we would have a 19.1 trillion dollar surplus today.

If we held annual growth to 4% we would have an 11.3 trillion dollar surplus. In fact, even with annual growth at 5% we would still have a 1.5 trillion dollar surplus today.

But, at 6% annual growth in spending we would have created 11 trillion in debt.

Unfortunately this is what happened:
During Ronald Reagan's 2 presidential terms spending increased by an average of 7.75% annually.During George H. W. Bush's single term spending increased by 6.75% annually.During Bill Clinton's two terms spending increased by 3.25% annually.During George W. Bush's terms spending increased 6.62% annually.And during Barak Obama's time in office spending has increased by 3% annually. 20 years of 7% growth in government has left us with 18 trillion in debt.


Obviously there are many factors that go into the growth in spending. Inflation rates, the economy, who controls the two houses of congress, and of course the president.

The good news is that revenue went up by an average of 5.5% annually over the same period.


So, If we contain spending growth to 4% annually and continue to see 5.5% growth annually in revenue we will see a balanced budget in 10 years and surpluses after that. Cuts to spending or growth in the economy would significantly improve the timeline.


Obviously the long term cost of the affordable care act will impact these numbers.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your take away point

Gingrich and Boehner are fiscally responsible and shut downs work to limit spending.

 

[SSB]

I'm not sure that is completely true.

Clintons first couple budgets were approved while Dems held both houses. We saw 4% growth. Obama's first three budgets were approved by Dems and outside of 2009 we saw an average of two percent growth. Obviously it is hard to throw out 09 due to the dramatic spending growth. But it was an unusual year.

 

[SSB]

My takeaway is that

Government spends too much money and Republicans are anything but fiscally conservative. I'm not saying Democrats are more fiscally conservative, just that Republicans are not.

Republican voters believe something the evidence doesn't support.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Historically, I think you are correct.

The main difference between the parties historically has been about what to spend the money on and how to pay for it, rather than whether or not to actually spend and how much.

I think that is becoming less true, though, as of late. The Tea Party thinks spending is a bad idea just on general principle. The sequester, regardless of supposed bipartisan support, was largely the result of the shift in the GOP toward TP beliefs on spending.

goat

 

[meridian]

Try to surprise me sometime, will you?

So, if Republican president spends a lot, it's the fault of the congress especially Democratic congress. If the Democratic president spends less, it is credit to the Republican congress. How do you explain the first term of Obama when he controlled budget much better than Bush-2, and he had Democratic congress and Democratic senate?

And you say such things straight-faced!!!
Amazing, truly amazing!

 

[SSB]

Historically Republicans have always

maintained that they are fiscally conservative. When I say always I men in my adult lifetime. But it hasn't been altogether true. But Republican voters will tell you it is. Now, as to if it is changing. Only time will tell. But if not my guess is it will be someone else's fault.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

i believe you heading should read, we've been bankrupted by "the" 1%.

had the average annual increase in personal wealth been spread out evenly, rather than the 1% getting virtually all the increase, and everyone else getting a net decrease after inflation, then we'd be looking at a much better economy today, a larger and better tax base, and much smaller spending on welfare..

the dispersion of sweat equity and the dispersion of wealth over the period do not even come close to equating.

how earned wealth is distributed is not really determined by any fairness doctrine, but rather by who gets to determine how the booty of a business or industry gets divided up.


obviously some deserve more than others, but since those at the top also control the distribution, the "control" element can trump the "deserve" element of the equation.


and then we also have "the skimmers" who contribute relatively very little to the "sweat equity" element, yet take a ridiculously disproportionately high percentage of the wealth vs their actual contribution.


no doubt those who control the distribution would say they do distribute relative to contribution, it's just that they always value their contribution differently than they value that of others.

market forces are needed to equate distribution with sweat equity, and in a universe of exporting jobs and importing low wage labor, and those controlling the fruits using those fruits they control to also control the rule making, the needed market forces cease to exist.

in a govt where dollars equal votes/control, it's always going to be a vicious cycle induced slow downward spiral till you hit a critical mass point, at which time anarchy will take over.

as long as dollars = votes/control, there is no way to stop the cycle until it does hit that critical mass point.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think that is mostly wrong

The GOP big spending first appeared during GWB's administration, not because of Bush but because of the massive transportation and energy bills which Bush should have vetoed. Also the two wars and TARP.

Reagan vetoed spending and IIRC was the last POTUS to veto a number of spending bills. The huge uptic in spending came from Tip O'Neil. I agree about the differences in spending priorities but that is a different issue.

As far as Obama's spending is concerned, I think one needs to understand what happened in 2011.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is mostly true.

POTUS has remarkably little power over the spending. Your take on history would be much more accurate if you looked at who controlled the House of Representatives not the White House.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

For Presidents, sure...

But in Congress, the GOP has always been happy to waste money. So long as it was on the military and/or in their districts.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I can't explain that because it didn't happen.

I've explained this several times.

 

[mjvcaj]

Edit misread

Edit
This post was edited on 4/20 11:35 PM by mjvcaj

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Sure they have.

It isn't a secret that congress wastes money. Did you catch my post about the useless GOP earmark when we were discussing infrastructure?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But now...

...there is a genuine movement within the GOP of people who are opposed to spending on principle.

Obviously, I think this is dumb.

But it's there, and it's definitely a noticeable shift.

The sequester would never have happened 10 years ago.

 

[meridian]

If so,

How come do you always trash Obama instead of the congress?

 

[SSB]

The difference between 5% spending growth and

6% spending growth made a huge difference in the debt. That was the point, 1%.

I did have an agenda. Republicans believe they elect fiscal conservatives. It isn't true. Republican voters need to hold the people they elect accountable. But they always make excuses, Reagan was bankrupting the Soviets, Bush (W) was protecting us post 9-11.

We need at least one of the two parties to be fiscally conservative. It isn't the case, they both grow spending.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You are wrong about that too

I trashed Pelosi for the spending during Obama's first two years.

After that I trashed Obama for being incompetent, immature, ignorant, feckless, lazy, disingenuous, and dumb. I also trashed him for many of his spending proposals and his refusal to work with congress on a sensible budget.

 

[SSB]

I'll say it again.

The Democrats approved Clinton's first two budgets that grew by only 4%. Republican's approved W's budgets that increased by 8 and 7%. Republicans had control of the house through most of W's presidency.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Democrats are fiscally conservative and Republicans liberal. I'm trying to convince people that Republicans fail at fiscal conservatism.

Hold them accountable.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I agree about spending during the GWB term

But I think that was a blip, not a trend, caused by the wars, the transportation bill, the energy bill, the 2008 stimulus, and TARP.

 

[mjvcaj]

Agreed, I misread your post

my apologies. Part of the reason Republican policies are under attack is because of failed implementation.

 

[VanPastorMan]

I'll say it again.

The Democrats approved Clinton's first two budgets that grew by only 4%. Republican's approved W's budgets that increased by 8 and 7%. Republicans had control of the house through most of W's presidency.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Democrats are fiscally conservative and Republicans liberal. I'm trying to convince people that Republicans fail at fiscal conservatism.

Hold them accountable.

Weren't the Repubs held accountable by losing Congress in 06? That's how you do it. Vote the Rascals out!!!

 

[meridian]

It is mostly true.

POTUS has remarkably little power over the spending. Your take on history would be much more accurate if you looked at who controlled the House of Representatives not the White House.

Are you serious? Postings after postings, you've been blaming Obama for the spending. Were you lying then or now?

 

[hoosier2112]

How do you explain the first term of Obama when he controlled budget much better than Bush-2, and he had Democratic congress and Democratic senate?

And you say such things straight-faced!!!
Amazing, truly amazing!

Your first paragraph is a joke...and you're second one is recognizing it, right?

Either that or you swallowed Rex Nutting's lies whole...